>Unless I am misremembering, Umbrella
>keywords still fall under the idea that the individual abilities you've
>put points in are "part of the keyword" so I'd say the same judgment
>applies. After all, these people have stats, so it is obviously PCs.
>(This doesn't exist as a question with NPCs.) If the players have the
>same sort of "huh, that seems weird" reaction you do, it clearly calls
>for a more specific ability bonus.
I think you're making things more complicated than they need to be. There are three categories of broadness. In the combat example it would be something like
Mercenary : Unarmed Combat : Laughing Dragon Martial Arts
When abilities in more than one category are used, the more specific ones get a bonus.
IMO it gets confusing if you say that some Spear fighting is more specific than other Spear fighting. Unless the skill is specifically named: Boar Spear, being a hunting skill, would be less specific than a Spear skill used in combat. (But the situation would be reversed against a boar.)
And you're right, the whole rule is PC focused. Nobody cares about the colorful abilities the GM comes up with. The idea is to encourage players to come up with abilities more interesting than "Warrior" or "Strong," which don't spark creativity the way something like "Laughing Dragon Martial Arts" does (it's possible to come up with a scenario revolving around other members of this school).
Like Jeff, I've read much Icelandic literature about fighting farmers. But the idea of an ordinary character up against professionals is pretty common. You want the hero to be able to succeed thanks to his drives, not face certain doom because he didn't train with a military unit.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Powered by hypermail